Lewis v. Swicki et al
PRISCS-INITIAL REVIEW ORDER, Answer deadline updated for Butkiewicus to 7/3/2013; Stewart to 7/3/2013; Swicki to 7/3/2013., ( Discovery due by 11/25/2013, Dispositive Motions due by 12/24/2013) Signed by Judge Alvin W. Thompson on 4/23/2013.(Payton, R.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
CHRISTOPHER J.M. LEWIS,
LIEUTENANT SWICKI, et al.,
CASE NO. 3:13-cv-495(AWT)
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
The plaintiff, Christopher J.M. Lewis, currently
incarcerated at the MacDougall-Walker Correctional Center in
Suffield, Connecticut, has filed a complaint pro se under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2000).
He names as defendants Lieutenant Swicki,
Captain Butkiewicus and Correctional Officer Stewart.
plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to protect him from
harm by another inmate.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2000), the court must review
prisoner civil complaints and dismiss any portion of the
complaint that is frivolous or malicious, that fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
reviewing a pro se complaint, the court must assume the truth of
the allegations, and interpret them liberally to “raise the
strongest arguments [they] suggest.”
636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007).
Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d
Although detailed allegations are not
required, the complaint must include sufficient facts to afford
the defendants fair notice of the claims and the grounds upon
which they are based and to demonstrate a right to relief.
Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007).
allegations are not sufficient.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
The plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
U.S. at 570.
But “‘[a] document filed pro se is to be liberally
construed and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded,
must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers.’”
Boykin v. KeyCorp., 521 F.3d 202, 214 (2d
Cir. 2008) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)).
The incident underlying the complaint occurred while the
plaintiff was confined at Northern Correctional Institution.
plaintiff alleges that defendants Swicki and Butkiewicus were
aware that, in July 2010, information was intercepted that the
plaintiff would be harmed in the near future.
On November 25,
2010, the plaintiff was in Phase One of the Security Risk Group
Safety Threat Member Program.
A requirement of the program is
that inmates be handcuffed behind their backs whenever they leave
their cells including during outdoor recreation.
On that date,
defendant Stewart strip searched a high security inmate.
thereafter, the inmate slipped his handcuffs to the front and
assaulted the plaintiff with a 4" piece of metal.
was unable to defend himself.
The plaintiff’s claims will
proceed against the defendants in their individual capacities.
In accordance with the foregoing analysis, the court enters
the following orders:
The Clerk shall verify the current work addresses for
each defendant with the Department of Correction Office of Legal
Affairs, and mail waiver of service of process request packets to
each defendant at his or her confirmed address within fourteen
(14) days of this order.
The Clerk shall report to the court on
the status of that waiver request on the thirty-fifth (35) day
If any defendant fails to return the waiver
request, the Clerk shall make arrangements for in-person service
by the U.S. Marshals Service on that defendant in his or her
individual capacity and the defendant shall be required to pay
the costs of such service in accordance with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(d).
The Clerk shall send a courtesy copy of the Complaint
and this order to the Connecticut Attorney General and the
Department of Correction Legal Affairs Unit.
The defendants shall file their response to the
complaint, either an answer or motion to dismiss, within seventy
(70) days from the date of this order.
If they choose to file an
answer, they shall admit or deny the allegations and respond to
the cognizable claims recited above.
They also may include any
and all additional defenses permitted by the Federal Rules.
Discovery, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
26 through 37, shall be completed within seven months (210 days)
from the date of this order.
Discovery requests need not be
filed with the court.
All motions for summary judgment shall be filed within
eight months (240 days) from the date of this order.
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(a), a nonmoving party
must respond to a dispositive motion within twenty-one (21) days
of the date the motion was filed.
If no response is filed, or
the response is not timely, the dispositive motion can be granted
If the plaintiff changes his address at any time during
the litigation of this case, Local Court Rule 83.1(c)2 provides
that the plaintiff MUST notify the court.
result in the dismissal of the case.
Failure to do so can
The plaintiff must give
notice of a new address even if he is incarcerated.
plaintiff should write PLEASE NOTE MY NEW ADDRESS on the notice.
It is not enough to just put the new address on a letter without
indicating that it is a new address.
If the plaintiff has more
than one pending case, indicate the case numbers in the
notification of change of address.
The plaintiff should also
notify the defendants or the attorney for the defendants of his
It is so ordered.
Dated this 23rd day of April 2013, at Hartford, Connecticut.
Alvin W. Thompson
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?